In 2025, the precious metals market experienced a frenzy. Silver broke through the $50 range in late November and then surged parabolically, reaching a historic high of $72 per ounce on December 24, with a yearly gain of 143%. Gold hit $4,524.30 per ounce on the same day, rising 70% for the year.
In stark contrast, Bitcoin was trading at $87,498 at the time of writing, down 8% year-to-date and 30% from its October peak of $126,000.
This has given pause to proponents of Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative, as the macroeconomic trends driving the rally in precious metals do not seem to be transferring to the crypto market.
The core drivers of the precious metals rally—a weaker U.S. dollar, expectations of Federal Reserve rate cuts in 2026, and rising geopolitical risks—are the very conditions Bitcoin supporters have long anticipated as bullish.
However, when allocating funds for避险, the market favors tangible hedging tools with centuries of credibility, like gold and silver. Central banks globally have been increasing their gold reserves throughout the year, and retail funds shifted towards physical precious metals after Bitcoin's decline early in the year.
Multiple studies in 2025 confirmed that gold demonstrates more stable避险 performance during various macroeconomic shocks, whereas Bitcoin behaves more like a high-beta risk asset, correlating positively with stocks and failing to lead in this cycle.
Structural demand differences further widened the gap. Silver's rise was fueled not only by避险 demand but also by record industrial demand from sectors like photovoltaics and electronics. Scarcity of substitutes in the supply chain exacerbated tightness, creating dual support from both macro and industrial factors.
Bitcoin, lacking industrial utility, has demand concentrated in financial speculation and on-chain settlements, with no physical demand buffer. This asymmetry means that even if rate cuts stall and risk appetite cools, silver still has industrial demand as a floor, while Bitcoin can only rely on ETF inflows to absorb selling pressure. With those flows now turning negative, its support has weakened.
The silver surge is a macroeconomic barometer, not a trading signal. It confirms the market's pricing of low real interest rates and a weak dollar, but it highlights that Bitcoin has not yet been integrated into the hard asset trading system.
For Bitcoin to reverse its downtrend, it needs improved regulatory clarity to drive renewed institutional allocation, a recovery in retail sentiment, or a macroeconomic shock where its attributes like censorship resistance and programmability prove valuable.
It is worth noting that silver positions are becoming relatively crowded; a hawkish pivot by the Fed or similar events could trigger asset volatility, which would also indirectly impact Bitcoin.
The divergence in 2025 proves that "hard assets" cannot yet be equated with Bitcoin. Silver combines industrial demand with institutional credibility, gold has institutional credibility and narrative momentum, while Bitcoin is still vying for institutional acceptance and can never possess industrial attributes.
This does not negate Bitcoin's value, but for it to outperform, additional conditions must be met. Once those conditions are satisfied, its upside potential could still surpass that of precious metals.
Until then, we must recognize that macroeconomic tailwinds have not yet propelled the crypto market, and Bitcoin still has a way to go before it becomes a hard asset.
Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN
Bitpush TG Discussion Group:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity
Bitpush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush
